Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

The visible universe has a beginning which is based on eternal motion.

Motion is eternal.

Motion = energy.

Motion = pushing force.

Everything which is physical way real and moving "in" space is pushing force.

Eternal circulation is based only on pushing force which is motion.

Therefore pulling force/arching space does not exist.

Thus the motion/energy of which the visible universe was born existed yet before the visible universe came into existence out of it.

In the eternal and infinite space there are extremely dense and massive objects that are very far away from each other. All of them are located far outside the visible universe and the expanding visible universe protrudes away from one such object. Thereby the expanding condensations absorb motion originally from other similar objects to themselves. This is the matter of motion/energy i.e. remains of very old detectable kind of universes.

These extremely dense and massive objects recycle the eternal motion/energy among each other and during this action there are detectable kinds of galaxies born out of the extremely dense motion/energy that is directed away from those very objects.

If there were no remains of the old universes that still have areas of different densities protruding in the contrary direction no detectable kind of visible universe could ever be born.

First the supermassive objects in the centers of galaxies are born out of zillions of individual condensations that expand and recycle the expanding motion/energy among each other.

The external motion/energy protruding towards gets the expansion of these objects to accelerate very strongly at the same time. As a result there is suddenly an extremely great pressure in the center of a large area with no gravitational force at all.

Now there is outward expanding motion/energy being pressed from the center of this area out of which new expanding stars come to existence by the aid of the external motion/energy in a similar manner. Also new detectable kind of matter is born consisting of the cores of expanding atoms that recycle among each other the expanding motion/energy with a nature of expanding light.

In this case the external motion originates from a supermassive object in another galaxy’s center that also expands in a manner that expanding motion/energy protrudes outward of it. This expanding motion/energy has the nature of expanding cores of atoms and thus it also has the nature of expanding stars.

Space is eternal and infinite room that is nothing at all.

Therefore space does not expand or arch.

The general redshift of light does not prove that expanding space exists.

The bending in the trajectory of light for example when passing the sun does not prove that arching space exists.

So called gravitational redshift of light does not prove that gravitation or arching space exist.

The phenomena in question are a proof of photons expanding and recycling expanding motion/energy among each other and therefore the light generally redshifts during its journey. Therefore the light bends when it passes the sun and therefore the expanding light protruding outward from the dense star gravitationally redshifts so to speak.

New expanding photons interact with old expanding photons that originate from other galaxies of the superbunch/cluster of galaxies. Interacting with new expanding photons the speed of old expanding photons increases and therefore the old light generally redshifts so to speak.

Expanding photons that are originally from billions of galaxies protrude towards the expanding sun. These photons have recycled expanding motion/energy during their journey and the motion/energy protrudes towards the sun in the areas in between the expanding photons and then collides with the expanding photons that are protruding past the sun getting their trajectory to bend towards the expanding sun.

Thanks Niko

EternalRecycling

Entropy working in every level, also very small! I mean, inside quarks and photons too! Of course! Or if not, WHY NOT?

__________________"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

The visible universe has a beginning which is based on eternal motion.

Based on? If you mean our knowledge of the Big Bang arises from analysing the motions of galaxies, then okay. If you mean something more than that then please explain.

Quote:

Motion is eternal.

Not clear what you mean by this. Maybe you just mean momentum is conserved, in which case cool. Maybe you mean something else, if so please explain.

Quote:

Motion = energy.

There is such a thing as kinetic energy, yes.

Quote:

Motion = pushing force.

No, I don't see this. If you had two particles that didn't interact they would never push against each other, no matter how much relative motion existed between the two. They could approach to arbitrarily small distances at arbitrarily high velocities without any pushing happening.

Quote:

Everything which is physical way real and moving "in" space is pushing force.

No.

Quote:

Eternal circulation is based only on pushing force which is motion.

No.

Quote:

Therefore pulling force/arching space does not exist.

This is just an assertion. You are basically saying "there is nothing other than pushing, therefore there is no pulling" which is equivalent to "there is nothing other than pushing, therefore there is nothing other than pushing." It's not only a tautology. It's also wrong.

The rest of your post makes even less sense than the above and is just something you dreamed up.

__________________"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov

First born expanding supermassive concentrations with own 3 D "big bang" and later this expanding supermassive concentrations collide with each others and then born new expanding galaxys inside to outside.

"No, I don't see this. If you had two particles that didn't interact they would never push against each other, no matter how much relative motion existed between the two. They could approach to arbitrarily small distances at arbitrarily high velocities without any pushing happening."

__________________"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov

__________________"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov

You let it go and expanding air cant pushing expanding ball away from expanding Earth centre so much what you can.

Now expanding ball is not moving away from expanding Earth centre so fast what your expanding hand.

��

Okay. The earth is expanding. I assume it's also accelerating in it's expansion, given that the ball appears to accelerate toward it when released, yes?

Why don't two people on the surface of this expanding earth appear to move away from each other?

__________________"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov

I'm in China and my VPN isn't working so I can't watch youtube videos.

__________________"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov

"But in 2019, a new one has arisen. One camp, using relics from the earliest stages of the Big Bang, keeps getting values of ~67 km/s/Mpc, with a claimed uncertainty of just 1-2%. The other camp, using measurements from the relatively nearby Universe, claims ~73 km/s/Mpc, with uncertainties of just 2-3%. These errors are so small that they no longer overlap. Something is wrong, and we cannot figure out where."

Well, ofcourse there is some expanding pushing force from all other expanding galaxys expanding stars which pushing us that way where is expanding Earth centre.

Two expanding people moving away from each other same way what all matter and light expanding.

🤔

I’m talking about standing in a field next to my friend. Why doesn’t he drift away from me, carried by the expanding earth?

It’s a pretty simple question.

__________________"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov

Recently, however, a team of scientists has begun using X-ray emitting quasars, which are much brighter and, hence, visible at even earlier times: when the Universe was only one billion years old. In an interesting new paper, scientists Guido Risaliti and Elisabeta Lusso use quasars as a standard candle to go farther back than we ever have in measuring the nature of dark energy. What they found is still tentative, but astounding nonetheless.

If verified and correct, this has implications for the long term future of the universe.

The same gibberish, ignorance and lies about science that was in the 10 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread and currently locked continuation.

A total delusion that he can explain everything with pushing force.We can explain everything with real science that works and has been created and checked over centuries by many scientists.He has ignorant delusions and stupid cartoons in deluded videos and a crank web site.

"But in 2019, a new one has arisen. One camp, using relics from the earliest stages of the Big Bang, keeps getting values of ~67 km/s/Mpc, with a claimed uncertainty of just 1-2%. The other camp, using measurements from the relatively nearby Universe, claims ~73 km/s/Mpc, with uncertainties of just 2-3%. These errors are so small that they no longer overlap. Something is wrong, and we cannot figure out where."

The same gibberish, ignorance and lies about science that was in the 10 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread and currently locked continuation.

An insane lie about science. The science is that we detected that the universe is expanding back in 1927. This article does not state that an expanding universe is wrong.
The issue is that 2 different methods of measuring the rate of expansion of the universe give values that we have known are different for decades. There was a chance that they would become the same with more data. The latest result is that is not the case. Thus there is probably something wrong with 1 or both of the methods.

VERY VERY INTERESTING demonstration of Pixie of key's abysmal delusions

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

This IS VERY VERY INTERESTING

The same gibberish, ignorance and lies about science that was in the 10 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread and currently locked continuation.

VERY VERY INTERESTING demonstration of Pixie of key's abysmal delusions.
This is the abysmal delusion that he can do science about sunspots and planetary orbits. The obvious insanity in previous videos is summing up orbital periods of the rocky planets and dividing by 4. That does not give the times when rocky planets are on one side of the Sun and possibly creating sunspots. Made more insane because it is the gas giants that have the dominant gravitational effect on the Sun.

A "Reason why there was Sunspots 1940 - 2000, even should not be" video that lies in the title. The Sun has been producing sunspots as far back as we can determine, certainly during the centuries that we have been recording them. There have been grand solar minimums and maximums in the past. No scientist has stated that "1940 - 2000" should be a grand solar minimum ,

Okay. I see. So the earth is expanding, but I'm expanding too, and so is everything else, so the shape of things remains the same. Does the speed of light also increase proportionate to the expansion?

The moon is also expanding too. So, why don't the earth and moon expand into each other? Okay, so the moon is moving away from the earth, but there's no gravitational force, there's just this expansion. So the moon should be expanding as it moves away from the earth in a straight line. I'm not seeing how you can get an orbit from this picture.

An astronaut in orbit is also expanding, and expanding at the rate that keeps his size proportional to the earth a constant, in order to preserve relative shapes. So, if he puts a pen an inch from his chest shouldn't he expand into it and the pen end up on his chest, appearing to experience a force toward him?

I'm also having a hard time seeing how this expansion could explain the force of gravity being proportional the 1/R2. Shouldn't it just be constant?

__________________"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov

Okay. I see. So the earth is expanding, but I'm expanding too, and so is everything else, so the shape of things remains the same. Does the speed of light also increase proportionate to the expansion?

The moon is also expanding too. So, why don't the earth and moon expand into each other? Okay, so the moon is moving away from the earth, but there's no gravitational force, there's just this expansion. So the moon should be expanding as it moves away from the earth in a straight line. I'm not seeing how you can get an orbit from this picture.

An astronaut in orbit is also expanding, and expanding at the rate that keeps his size proportional to the earth a constant, in order to preserve relative shapes. So, if he puts a pen an inch from his chest shouldn't he expand into it and the pen end up on his chest, appearing to experience a force toward him?

I'm also having a hard time seeing how this expansion could explain the force of gravity being proportional the 1/R2. Shouldn't it just be constant?

Ok, when expanding Moon is between expanding Sun and expanding Earth, expanding Moon get more expanding pushing force away from expanding Sun.

This is because expanding particle from expanding Sun collide inside expanding Moon together with expanding particle from expanding Earth.

When expanding Earth is between expanding Moon and expanding Sun, this expanding pushing force particle from Sun and Earth moving inside Moon same direction and then there is no collide with this particle.

But this time inside Earth is, because expanding pushingvforce particle from expanding Sun and expanding Moon collide together inside Earth and now expanding Earth get nore pushing force away from Sun, you know or maybe not.

Ok, when expanding Moon is between expanding Sun and expanding Earth, expanding Moon get more expanding pushing force away from expanding Sun.

This is because expanding particle from expanding Sun collide inside expanding Moon together with expanding particle from expanding Earth.

When expanding Earth is between expanding Moon and expanding Sun, this expanding pushing force particle from Sun and Earth moving inside Moon same direction and then there is no collide with this particle.

But this time inside Earth is, because expanding pushingvforce particle from expanding Sun and expanding Moon collide together inside Earth and now expanding Earth get nore pushing force away from Sun, you know or maybe not.

🤔

Matti Nykänen was King. Best skijumper ever.

🇫🇮

That's not how forces, or just particle collisions, work "expanding pushing" or otherwise. Opposing forces or particle collisions will act counter to each other. As a result your net "pushing" for the in between two bodies case would be less than just from either of those one bodies. Conversely force and/or particle collisions that act in the same direction add to each other. Hence the situation where you get your greater pushing on the one body is when it is not between the other two, as your forces or "collisions" would be acting in the same or similar direction.

Put more simply in order for your in between situation to be additive, a greater force away from the sun on the in between body, your outer body force/particle would have to be pulling and not pushing.

So, have you actually tried that rope experiment yet?

If not, why not?

If so, why haven't you reported what you found?

It would clearly demonstrate the difference between pulling and pushing forces. Particularly on materials that, well, react differently to such differing forces.

How do the observations of that experiment support your "point of view", particularly about there being no pulling forces.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.